Discussion and Response to Criticism by Prof. Sander

The original article referenced in this post was already mentioned in the 'Why did they send me this' thread, but I thought the discussion of the relevance of the article and the response to criticism Prof. Sander is going to make over the next week might be of interest to those on this board. Here is the link: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1118436252.shtml. Do with it what you wish.

This is one of the dirty secrets that no one want to say out loud: that blacks in law school have much higher attrition rates and lower bar passage rates than their white counterparts. Professor Sander has investigated the obvious possibility that affirmative action has created a "mismatch effect," in which blacks are competing against others with much higher credentials. Since law school grades are based on a curve, blacks usually end up on the left half of that curve, near the bottom of the class. This practice begins in the most elite schools, but has a trickle-down effect that influences every school on the way down to Tier 4. If the T14 take the applicants that would normally be taken by the bottom half of Tier 1, those Tier 1 schools are forced to compensate by recruiting Tier 2 candidates, and so on...

One of the strongest objections to Prof. Sanders research is that the entire applicant pool of black law students will be dramatically reduced if affirmative action is eliminated. However there is little evidence either way for this assertion.

Has anyone attempted to factor in the increased bar passage rates that you would expect if Sander is right when thinking about the overall number of black lawyers -- which is probably more important than the number of black law students or applicants? If you could end up with the same number ofblack lawyers, or more, without AA but save some students from a waste of 1-3 years and crushing debt it would seem to be a positive.

EDIT: Nevermind. This would obviously be hard to do if you don't have a reliable estimate for the number of students who wouldn't apply or get accepted without AA.

Has anyone attempted to factor in the increased bar passage rates that you would expect if Sander is right when thinking about the overall number of black lawyers -- which is probably more important than the number of black law students or applicants? If you could end up with the same number ofblack lawyers, or more, without AA but save some students from a waste of 1-3 years and crushing debt it would seem to be a positive.

EDIT: Nevermind. This would obviously be hard to do if you don't have a reliable estimate for the number of students who wouldn't apply or get accepted without AA.

Your point still merits consideration, if only on a theoretical level. It might be easier for minorities to build wealth if they were going to less prestigious schools, yet graduating at far higher rates. Even if today's generation has to attend Tier 2, it may allow a greater proportion of the next generation to attend Tier 1.

This is one of the dirty secrets that no one want to say out loud: that blacks in law school have much higher attrition rates and lower bar passage rates than their white counterparts. Professor Sander has investigated the obvious possibility that affirmative action has created a "mismatch effect," in which blacks are competing against others with much higher credentials. Since law school grades are based on a curve, blacks usually end up on the left half of that curve, near the bottom of the class. This practice begins in the most elite schools, but has a trickle-down effect that influences every school on the way down to Tier 4. If the T14 take the applicants that would normally be taken by the bottom half of Tier 1, those Tier 1 schools are forced to compensate by recruiting Tier 2 candidates, and so on...

One of the strongest objections to Prof. Sanders research is that the entire applicant pool of black law students will be dramatically reduced if affirmative action is eliminated. However there is little evidence either way for this assertion.

There is no ground for comparison. There are much less African American law students than there are Caucasian students, so certainly the attrition rate would be higher amongst Blacks since there are less of them to begin with. When there are an equal amounts of black and white law students attending law schools in this country, then come back to me with your viewpoints. Until then, I think its best you keep your fallacious ASSUMPTIONS to yourself

ETA: I know many black attorneys who have succeeded and done well in law school, some even surpassing the intellectual caliber of their Caucasian counterparts.As a black female myself, I am most certain that we will continue to succeed in law school, affirmative action aside. And FYI, AA is helping more Caucasian (particularly Caucasian females) than it is my own people. Get your facts straight before talking about something you have not a slightest clue about!

There is no ground for comparison. There are much less African American law students than there are Caucasian students, so certainly the attrition rate would be higher amongst Blacks since there are less of them to begin with. When there are an equal amounts of black and white law students attending law schools in this country, then come back to me with your viewpoints. Until then, I think its best you keep your fallacious ASSUMPTIONS to yourself

I don't really follow this line of reasoning. How does fewer blacks in law school account for their higher attrition rates? Furthermore, why is it a desirable goal that equal numbers of blacks and whites attend law school? If this were the case, then whites would be grossly underrepresented. Shouldn't the goal be proportional representation? I think you may be introducing a few assumptions of your own.

ETA: I know many black attorneys who have succeeded and done well in law school, some even surpassing the intellectual caliber of their Caucasian counterparts.As a black female myself, I am most certain that we will continue to succeed in law school, affirmative action aside. And FYI, AA is helping more Caucasian (particularly Caucasian females) than it is my own people. Get your facts straight before talking about something you have not a slightest clue about!

I don't doubt that affirmative action has been beneficial for some blacks. My point, and the point of Prof. Sander's research, is that AA has a net negative effect in the aggregate. A few exemplary cases may not make up for the failure of the system as a whole. Again, more research should be done, and to do away with AA entirely would probably be irresponsible. But to ignore this research would also be irresponsible.

Btw, I was under the impression that white females did not have URM status. Can anyone settle this?

Btw, I was under the impression that white females did not have URM status. Can anyone settle this?

I believe it's a reference to back in the day when there were very few (if any) females in the top schools. Now it's about 50/50 and probably not used anymore, but it got to that degree because of a specific aim to increase the representation of women in law. Hence, AA for women.

Logged

tegra8

as already mentioned the white female argument is pointless in this debate...

just go to LSN, when it's working again, sort a top school by index numbers and scroll to the bottom and almost every school will have extreme outliers that were admitted and every one of them will be a minority, not a white female. IF i apply next year with the same stats and check black male instead of white, i not only get accepted at all the schools i got wailised/rejected at this year, but could easily jump into at least half of the top20 schools and that is why AA is a bunch of crap

IF i apply next year with the same stats and check black male instead of white, i not only get accepted at all the schools i got wailised/rejected at this year, but could easily jump into at least half of the top20 schools and that is why AA is a bunch of crap

You really, really don't know that for sure. At least, I've never known anyone to be able to predict with 100% accuracy the schools they'd get into. Assertions of likelihood and certainty are two different things altogether.

as already mentioned the white female argument is pointless in this debate...

just go to LSN, when it's working again, sort a top school by index numbers and scroll to the bottom and almost every school will have extreme outliers that were admitted and every one of them will be a minority, not a white female. IF i apply next year with the same stats and check black male instead of white, i not only get accepted at all the schools i got wailised/rejected at this year, but could easily jump into at least half of the top20 schools and that is why AA is a bunch of darn

This is why I stay away from these boards mostly, someone inevitably cries out that he is a victim with little evidence to support his assertion.

I am trying to have a discussion on how AA affects minorities, not whites, since it really doesn't significantly harm whites.